More on Skirts

[n david]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Nah, you're just on AFF (right next door to the Twilight Zone...).

My point is that many who claim to be liberal and tolerant are actually Pharisaic legalists at heart, and it shows in their demands when arguing against others.

Ndavid, do you believe people can have the right heart and attitude, wholly devoted to pleasing God, yet be ignorant of various details on how to perform the will of God? And that it takes time to LEARN the specifics of God's will on various matters? And that as long as the heart is right, the person will grow and learn and conform to the will of God as it becomes known to them? And further, that such a person is not hellbound unless they willfully balk at the now-known will of God?

OR, do you believe every born again child of God is hellbound until they are totally perfect in every possible thing, in every possible way, no exceptions PERIOD?

Esaias, either sin is sin, or it's not. Sin isn't sin based on the timeframe one has received the new birth experience.

Does it take time to learn God's will. Absolutely. But a sinner knows what sin is, so why would it take time for a Christian to learn what sin is or isn't?

No one can have unrepentant sin in their life and be saved. Regardless of if they are newborn or mature.

I don't believe people are perfect, but must repent of sin.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

Now you're just babbling all kinds of mess. You're posting two different pendulum extremes. Are you okay, Pliny?

I am. Thank you for asking.

You must like playing dodge ball because you refuse to deal with the real question. Instead, you keep trying to paint me as some kind of Medieval Crusader who can't wait to chop down some poor soul who does not line up. When I provide a Biblically based answer, you come back with ad-hominem attacks.

Not surprising,

Originally Posted by n david

BTW, you must have missed where I affirmed new birth, water and spirit, Acts 2:38 as the plan of salvation.

In the end you had better be WITHOUT SPOT or BLEMISH (aka perfect) or you won't be saved. It doesn't matter if you're newborn or mature, sin will never enter there! Do you not believe this?

I did not miss it. May have been after I posted before - not sure now. I am glad you affirm the New Birth!

Do I believe sin will enter there? Of course not. However, I do not believe that I am perfect. I believe as long as I am "giving it my all" then His mercy will make up for the rest. I can never, in and of myself, ever be perfect. I rely on His mercy and grace. Nice to know you need neither.

It is a tragedy that you believe a person must be perfect to enter heaven. Didn't you imply I was legalistic? This sure sounds legalistic to me. Really, I think your narcissism is showing...

Originally Posted by n david

No, I don't believe in a "get out of hell free card." Absurd! I'm beginning to wonder if you do though. The past few posts have raised a lot of questions as to your belief of sin and its consequences.

I believe you implied I was legalistic. Now you would call me what? Liberal? I have given a Biblical response and as usual, you don't like it. Oh well. Continue the straw man because you cannot provide evidence for your position to the real question. Demonstrate Biblically where a godly woman wore pants.

Originally Posted by n david

Mmmmmk. Nowhere is John claiming that newborn Christians are free to sin, but mature Christians are not.

That's right. John said
(1Jn 2:1 ESV) My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

However, unlike you and your perfectionist standard to enter heaven, John also said BUT IF you do sin, we have an advocate.

Originally Posted by n david

Yes, possibly.

6361. petash ►
Strong's Concordance
petash: (a garment) perhaps leggings
Original Word: פַּטִּישֵׁי
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: petash
Phonetic Spelling: (pat-teesh')
Short Definition: coats
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
(Aramaic) of uncertain derivation
Definition
(a garment) perhaps leggings
NASB Translation
coats (1).

Brown-Driver-Briggs
[מְּטַשׁ] noun [masculine] a garment, meaning dubious, tunic (Thes) or leggings SACJPhil. xxvi (1899), 309; (probably later insertion in text Id.ib. 311 ff.) (Talmud (rare); √פטשׁ spread out according to K§ 57 b) a)); — plural suffix פטישי הון Kt (probably ׳מְּטִי K§§ 54, 3 a)a); 57, b)a), Kmpon the passage M78* and others ׳מַּטִּי), מַּטְּשֵׁיהוֺן Qr, Daniel 3:21; conjectures on meaning see in Behrm Bev Dr M78*.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
hose
(Aramaic) from a root corresponding to that of pattiysh; a gown (as if hammered out wide) -- hose.

You do know BDB and Strong's, although are good, there are better sources? Like the translators who spoke Hebrew and Greek fluently used the word specifically for pants. They knew more than Strong's and BDB put together as they lived it. In fact, scholars today use their writings to help them understand those languages today. I will take their word for it. The Hebrew young men wore pants. BTW, the LXX is the Bible of the first century church - the same one available when Christ walked the earth.

Originally Posted by n david

Why is it so hard for you to state your belief that a woman who wears pants is committing sin?

I believe it is sin. Not hard at all. I teach the Bible and it is then between the hearer and God. I don't expect them to be perfect. I expect them to consider the teaching. I am not their judge like you imply you are - Mr. Perfection himself. When was the last time you walked on water?

Originally Posted by n david

Do you have a brain tumor? How could you possibly read my posts, where I have stated sin is sin and sin = death, and then turn around and post something stupid like this? You, sir, are the one refusing to state if a woman who wears pants is committing a sin. You're the one, sir, who claimed there is a set of rules for newborn Christians and a different set of rules for mature Christians.

Nope, I never said there were two sets of rules. Please demonstrate where I said there were two sets of rules. However, I do believe judgment will be different for us all.

(Rom 14:8 ESV) For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's.
(Rom 14:9 ESV) For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
(Rom 14:10 ESV) Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God;
(Rom 14:11 ESV) for it is written, "As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."
(Rom 14:12 ESV) So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

I do not believe God will hold the new convert to the same standard as a mature Christian. Sorry you cannot understand that simple concept.

Apparently I am in good company:
(1Pe 2:1 ESV) So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander.
(1Pe 2:2 ESV) Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation—

Apparently, you believe that once a person is baptized they have arrived and have no need to "grow up". You know - mature.

Originally Posted by n david

You forgot the "or." As stated previously, I don't believe in a get out of hell free card. Sin is sin. Sin = death.

Now, can you state that women wearing pants are 1) in sin; and 2) if unrepentant will go to hell?

As has your silence proving women only wore robes, with no bifurcated garment underneath.

By your logic pedophilia is okay. Now, please demonstrate where a godly woman wore pants. That has proven impossible because it is...

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by n david

What in tarnation? NO!

What I've read and understood is that Deuteronomy 22:5 was a prohibition against women trying to take the role of a man as a warrior and men becoming transvestite prostitutes outside the temple.

So all female police officers and military personnel are hellbound, and probably any woman who packs a handgun. Meanwhile, men in drag are cool to go as long as they aren't hooking out at the Temple Mound.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by n david

Esaias, either sin is sin, or it's not. Sin isn't sin based on the timeframe one has received the new birth experience.

Does it take time to learn God's will. Absolutely. But a sinner knows what sin is, so why would it take time for a Christian to learn what sin is or isn't?

No one can have unrepentant sin in their life and be saved. Regardless of if they are newborn or mature.

I don't believe people are perfect, but must repent of sin.

And you can't see the problem with your position here?

Wow. Not sure what to say.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So all female police officers and military personnel are hellbound, and probably any woman who packs a handgun. Meanwhile, men in drag are cool to go as long as they aren't hooking out at the Temple Mound.

You bring up a good point. Those who believe that the abomination of Deuteronomy 22:5 applies to pants on a woman actually do condemn all female Apostolics who are police officers, firefighters, military personnel to Hell if they do not repent immediately of their abomination, even if it means that they must find another vocation or sever all contracts.

If something is an abomination, one's eternal soul is in immediate jeopardy. God doesn't play with abominations.
================================================== =====================

Now, my position sees pants as a modesty issue that can be handled with patience and some degree of flexibility.

In my position, Deuteronomy 22:5 is about an abomination of perversion and debauchery, not daily attire. It is an abomination to be repented of immediately. And refusal to repent immediately can lead one to being shunned and denied fellowship by the church.

Therefore, I don't have to soft-peddle or water-down the seriousness of an abomination to accommodate growth into "spiritual maturity" or the current profession of a woman. We can simply encourage "Christian modesty", which emphasizes dresses and skirts as opposed to jeans or pants. However, those who are still growing into Christian modesty might still wear pants. Some women might choose to only wear pants for personal reasons. And we provide suggestions on how to be modest in pants too. And for those who are in jobs such as law enforcement, firefighters, emergency response, and military personnel are encouraged to behave modestly while wearing the pants that are "functional" for their career.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

I am. Thank you for asking.

You're welcome.

Originally Posted by Pliny

I did not miss it. May have been after I posted before - not sure now. I am glad you affirm the New Birth!

Me too!

Originally Posted by Pliny

Do I believe sin will enter there? Of course not. However, I do not believe that I am perfect. I believe as long as I am "giving it my all" then His mercy will make up for the rest. I can never, in and of myself, ever be perfect. I rely on His mercy and grace. Nice to know you need neither.

It is a tragedy that you believe a person must be perfect to enter heaven. Didn't you imply I was legalistic? This sure sounds legalistic to me. Really, I think your narcissism is showing...

So you believe in greasy grace? Live like hell, but as long as you give it a good college try, you'll be okay?

Obviously no one is perfect, but I'm speaking of unrepentant sin.

I don't believe I ever said you were legalistic. I've made too many posts on what is a personal preference and not a biblical mandate to be 100% sure though.

Originally Posted by Pliny

That's right. John said
(1Jn 2:1 ESV) My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

However, unlike you and your perfectionist standard to enter heaven, John also said BUT IF you do sin, we have an advocate.

Yes, we have an advocate. Now show me where it says it's okay to continue sinning. Give it the good ole college try.

Originally Posted by Pliny

You do know BDB and Strong's, although are good, there are better sources? Like the translators who spoke Hebrew and Greek fluently used the word specifically for pants. They knew more than Strong's and BDB put together as they lived it. In fact, scholars today use their writings to help them understand those languages today. I will take their word for it. The Hebrew young men wore pants. BTW, the LXX is the Bible of the first century church - the same one available when Christ walked the earth.

Funny how you've waffled on definitions. First, you mocked me for using the Hebrew root meaning and you used Dictionary.com. Then I noticed several posts later you suddenly found the Hebrew root meaning to your liking and used that, instead of what Dictionary.com had. Soon, you'll be posting the Hebrew meaning again when it suits you.

Originally Posted by Pliny

I believe it is sin.

Finally!

Now, can a person who has unrepentant sin go to heaven?

Originally Posted by Pliny

Not hard at all. I teach the Bible and it is then between the hearer and God. I don't expect them to be perfect. I expect them to consider the teaching. I am not their judge like you imply you are - Mr. Perfection himself. When was the last time you walked on water?

Speaking of ad hominem and straw men - never said I was perfect.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Nope, I never said there were two sets of rules. Please demonstrate where I said there were two sets of rules. However, I do believe judgment will be different for us all.

But you did!

Originally Posted by Pliny

"Classic statement"? Really, So a conservative is not allowed to believe that God may expect more from a "mature" Christian than a "new born" Christian? Sorry to disappoint you. I believe the mercy of God will allow some people to make in spite of their disappointments. This includes me as I have sometimes fallen short.

Originally Posted by Pliny

(Rom 14:8 ESV) For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's.
(Rom 14:9 ESV) For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
(Rom 14:10 ESV) Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God;
(Rom 14:11 ESV) for it is written, "As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."
(Rom 14:12 ESV) So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

I do not believe God will hold the new convert to the same standard as a mature Christian. Sorry you cannot understand that simple concept.

More with the two sets of standards.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Apparently I am in good company:
(1Pe 2:1 ESV) So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander.
(1Pe 2:2 ESV) Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation—

Stop trying to twist the scripture to claim it supports your "two standards" theology. All that is saying is that you should grow up, not that there's a set of standards for newborns and a different set for mature. Nor is it agreeing with your claim that newborns are allowed to sin but mature Christians are not.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Apparently, you believe that once a person is baptized they have arrived and have no need to "grow up". You know - mature.

Nope, but good luck next time.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Esaias

And you can't see the problem with your position here?

Wow. Not sure what to say.

That sin is sin? No, I don't see the problem with calling sin "sin."

You can't see the problem with coddling abomination?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So all female police officers and military personnel are hellbound, and probably any woman who packs a handgun. Meanwhile, men in drag are cool to go as long as they aren't hooking out at the Temple Mound.

Absurd.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Actually, he came to us down and out. His previous lover had kicked him to the curb and he was needing help and seeking support. He was celibate at the time. But the moment we verified that he was actively in a homosexual relationship, we approached him to see if he'd repent. When it became obvious that he wasn't going to repent, we disfellowshipped him.

How long will you tolerate the "abomination" (according to your own position) of a woman wearing pants?

I have never had to dis-fellowship a woman because of it. That is something I would pray about and seek God's direction. Same with any sin.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

Speaking of pure eisegesis, you're committing the same offense of which you accuse Aquila.

Thank you for demonstrating you have no idea what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by n david

"The Jews." There is no mention of male or female. "The Jews." You are reading into something which isn't there, when you claim Barnes is only speaking of Jewish males.

So you believe there were women priests? Barnes noted the Levites which is a clear reference to the command for the priests to wear breeches. So, the only logical conclusion is you believe there were women priests. That is called eisegesis. You and Aquila - two proverbial peas in a pod.

Originally Posted by n david

False. There is no passage stating women only wore robes. You are reading into something which isn't there. You read about Priests wearing underwear and 3 Jewish guys wearing hose and thought it supports your personal opinion that only men wore bifurcated garments.

You must believe pedophilia is okay. If not please show where it is specifically condemned.

The truth is, the Bible demonstrates that only godly men wore pants. Godly women did not. Please demonstrate, specifically, where women wore pants.